Does anyone know why Pelosi is in Congress and in Leadership?

I read an interesting (glowing) bio on her in the newsweeklies after the 06 election.

As it happens, she was not involved in politics at all.

She was the scion of a wealthy and powerful Baltimore "machine" political family.

She moved to San Francisco and was NOT involved in politics.

Then she MARRIED an extremely wealthy San Francisco "old money" type.

Her new husband was a major Democratic Donor -- millionaire/billionaire.

One day, she put on a Democratic fundraiser at her husband's house.

A number of people from the state party asked her to put on more
fundraisers because she had so many wealthy friends who were
potential democratic donors.

She was such a GOOD FUNDRAISER that they offered her a position in leadership
if she would run for office.

She was chosen by a political machine, to be an agent for the
urban rich.

A key DLC "socially liberal, economically conservative" constituency.

As we have seen in policy after policy enacted by city councils
controlled by wealthy Democrats.

She is a fundraiser.

That is the only reason Pelosi is in office.

on the tip of my fingers but I won't write it...

It's because everyone wanted to vote for her to become the first woman Speaker of the House, the same way many will vote for Hillary, just because she's a woman, so she can become the first woman President. They don't mind that it's totally against their best interests, and against the best interests of the country, they just gotta have that first woman, everything and everyone else be damned!

Did that help clear it up?

of anyone else in her district. Silly me.

we want.

she is a republican hack, it seems her mission in life is to cover Bush's ass.

It's unfortunate, but here we are

some people are just sick.

Pelosi is an old-school Liberal. She was very active in the party for many years.

There's nothing Republican about her.

Except her actions, of course. But why quibble?

.

:thumbsdown:

deal with it.

YOU deal with it.

and no more or less.

I.e. liberal where it counts -- for her constituents.

If her wealthy urban constituents were injured by a policy
that helps poor Americans, there is no indication she would
fight for liberalism as a matter of principle.

If the people who got her in office oppose a public housing
project in a gentrifying neighborhood, or an H1B visa bill,
pro or con, or a plan to extend welfare benefits, she will
side with them every time in the interests of promoting the
interests of the professional class who overwhelmingly vote
in urban districts because THEY are the taxpaying citizens
who must be protected, first and foremost. Only then can
the problems of everyone else be administered to, and only
as supplicants. Only the productive, urban elite, the people
who power the "world city" of the future as many liberal urban
theorists are now saying, actually get entitlements.

She's a scammer. She got voted into a job she really didn't want and certainl doesn't have the temerity nor backbone to uphold. She is a disgrace, way in over her head. She thought it would be a cool little promotion with some nice perks...she didn't expect to actually be called upon to DO ANYTHING. An accident of timing. She would have been fine in a nation not in crisis.

.

The folks in her district are welcome to keep electing her to Congress. She just isn't a good choice to serve as speaker.

when she was elected to the Speaker position. Dumb Dems in Congress should have chosen someone else.

And, silly me, actually wanted that to happen....last year. :evilfrown:

The Repukes have spent years co-opting the Democratic Party. The true Democrats are afraid of being Wellstoned.

Or, how would be go about getting her out of the speaker's job?

Nancy Pelosi is one of the most liberal members of the House, representing one of the most liberal districts in the entire country. Of course, for the whacko left, anything to the right of Noam Chomsky is not left enough. That leaves out 99% of the human race, but it sure does make you special...

seriously...

Going around anonymously insulting people is considered bad form out in the real world.

When a public housing project or a school is closed, say in San Francisco,
who benefits? When rewards accrue to some and not others but it doesn't
matter because we successfully prevented the evil republicans from doing
something outrageous and unlikely to happen that was put up to a vote as
a smokescreen for more important (and politically unpopular) government
measures to shore up the investor class (or alternatively, to defeat
"draconian" measures designed to prosecute the criminal class, i.e. the
white collar executive class and their politician allies), qui bono?

All I see is the same-old same-old that has been going on ever since the
Liberal and Conservative parties in England perfected the art of two-party
parliamentary establishmentarianism ("toss the buck over the heads of the
citizenry, but don't let them catch it") in the 19th century.

Chomsky, who rarely has nice things to say about mainstream politicians, praised her actions regarding drugs in South America.

And since The Party is all, I must denounce Cindy and pray for evil and hate to befall her, whilst praising Pelosi...

It's a culture clash. Nobody who gets into politics because they are a good organization man or a good fundraiser can be expected to be a firebrand of popular discontent. What would their friends and loved ones say? This is why it often takes electoral defeat and humiliation by their own party to "radicalize" mainstream Democratic politicians. When you have nothing left to lose, no donors/no elections/no close political aides left to offend, it's fun to be the elder statesman in charge of telling Washington who they should REALLY be listening to.

I don't want to heap misfortune on his head by suggesting he live an interesting life (to quote an old Chinese proverb) but guys like Webb and Feingold, who consider themselves statesmen and servants of the people and are willing to take unpopular stands, should be in charge. Machine politicians are inimical to that sort of governance, it does not jibe with "how Washington works".

On Edit: We should go back to the old rule that anyone who wants the job
of party leader is automatically disqualified.

This would help weed out the ladder-climbers.

He said "hell no". He would have made a good one.

Lillylivered lunkhead.

'cause your post kind of makes it out like you don't.

Unfortunately, like most politicians, once in office, she put Party above principal.

Politics is in Pelosi's blood. Her father was a US Congressman and Mayor of Baltimore. ONe of her brothers also was Mayor of Baltimore. She went to college in DC and interned on the Hill. She met her husband while she was in school in DC and then moved to NY. After a few years in NY she moved to SF, where her husband's brother was a member of the board of supervisors. After moving to SF, she got involved in Democratic politics and, after a few years, was elected party chairwoman for Northern California. She worked her way up the ranks, becoming the chair of the party statewide and then becoming finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. It was only after all of this party activity that she agreed to run for Congress to fill the seat of Sala Burton. (Sala Burton was the widow of Phil Burton, who was one of Pelosi's mentors in California politics; when Burton died, Sala succeeded him, but she became gravely ill, and eventually died of cancer).

If you have support for the claim that Phil Burton was an agent for the urban rich, or represented only a "DLC socially liberal economically conservative constituency", please provide it.

of machine Democrats? The answer is, in the glowing puff pieces from 2006 (both of them, in Time and Newsweek) she was recruited because of her fundraising prowess and wealthy and influential family ties. That's how she got involved in San Francisco politics.

See, I oppose wealthy carpetbaggers.

To quote the great Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

In the political realm, a carpetbagger is someone who moves to a new location for the purpose of and with the presumption of taking a position of prominence. Pelosi moved to San Francisco because it was where her husband was. She slowly worked her way up in politics, and didn't run for office until she had lived in SF for 18 years.

by your definition, there are a lot of carpetbaggers around.

Best Speaker ever?

plus the great cocktail parties, the awesome hours, being on TV and part of The Greatest Reality Show on Earth, great health insurance, a fantastic retirement package, and sheer primate lust for power in a heirarchy.

That about cover it?

Sometimes I think we need a civics class around here as to how the House works. As Speaker, Pelosi, by nature is not supposed to advance a parties agenda...that role falls to the Majority Leader. For example, we all know Gym Teach Denny was an empty suit with DeLay doing all the work behind the scenes. There have been speakers who have been more politically active than others...Gingrich and Tip O'Neill come to mind...but their biggest weapon was manipulating the agenda or the rules, not pushing the specific legislation. It wasn't Gingrich who pushed Clinton's lynching...it was DeLay...and he was the Minority Whip at the time.

There's a lot said about Pelosi, but it's Hoyer who is the real power behind the throne here. Notice when the shit hits the fan on the floor, he's the one to rush to the mikes, not Pelosi. At most junctures that people have with problems with the House, Hoyer is almost always on the wrong side...from impeachment to supporting Al Wynne.

I'm not giving Pelosi a pass here but I think we need to expand the view as to what's going on and if there are changes to be made, do so at the proper places. In '04, we saw that the DNC was a big problem...thanks to Progressive activism, now it's an asset to our efforts. With the upcoming elections comes a new house leadership election and that's where we need to make our next moves...more Progressives in leadership roles. I suspect if that happens, we'll see a different Pelosi.

There does appear to be a lot of obsession with Pelosi. I wonder what kind of changes we'll see in House leadership with a new Democratic President.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Durbin became majority leader if Obama is President.

...and a year or two back, that made her look pretty good. Her refusal to execute, though, erases that difference.

in favor of enablers and appeasers.

and she's the leader because her caucus voted for her.

#1: She's in a safe district and will never lose her seat until she retires.

#2: She raises a ton of money for the party, raising money earns favors, favors are needed to run the House.

#3: She's very very well organized and even if you disagree with her she stays on message all the time. She doesn't get flustered.

She is in leadership because Democrats in the House voted for her.